read the article directly from the local NH paper.
This guy went out LOOKING for the criminal. I think what he did was just and the right thing to do but I am not sure if it was "legal". Here in IL they would throw the book at him.

I saw this earlier this week in a video interview and cringed as the guy told the reporter that he fired a warning shot.

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A WARNING SHOT.

Every gun owner needs to learn that.

Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk

Stung by the result of McDonald v. City of Chicago, 130 S. Ct. 3020 (2010), the City quickly enacted an ordinance that was too clever by half. Recognizing that a complete gun ban would no longer survive Supreme Court review, the City required all gun owners to obtain training that included one hour of live‐range instruction, and then banned all live ranges within City limits. This was not so much a nod to the importance of live‐range training as it was a thumbing of the municipal nose at the Supreme Court.

If he fired in a safe direction, his actions may still constitute unlawful discharge but how could it be reckless discharge unless there is a likely hood for injury or death?

Depends on how the law is written in the state.

He purposefully discharged a firearm in a residential neighborhood when his life was not in danger and bragged about it on tv.

Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk

Stung by the result of McDonald v. City of Chicago, 130 S. Ct. 3020 (2010), the City quickly enacted an ordinance that was too clever by half. Recognizing that a complete gun ban would no longer survive Supreme Court review, the City required all gun owners to obtain training that included one hour of live‐range instruction, and then banned all live ranges within City limits. This was not so much a nod to the importance of live‐range training as it was a thumbing of the municipal nose at the Supreme Court.

If he fired in a safe direction, his actions may still constitute unlawful discharge but how could it be reckless discharge unless there is a likely hood for injury or death?

Depends on how the law is written in the state.

He purposefully discharged a firearm in a residential neighborhood when his life was not in danger and bragged about it on tv.

Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk

I'm not so sure his life wasn't in danger, but I wasn't there.

How could he be a threat if he is crawling out a window with an arm load of loot. The dumbazz should have told him to stop or he would shoot and then wait for him to comply. Had he dropped the loot and made a move they guy then could have legally shot in fear of his life. Like one of the other posters said DANG MOVIES! There is no such thing as a warning shot PERIOD.

"A river cuts through a rock not because of its power but its persistence." - Jim Watkins

It is on the books as legal for law enforcement in IL to do. There is only one agency that will still advocate it's use.

You guessed it......the ISP.

You're kidding me. Who the heck would teach that. You pull a weapon it it is not for a warning. Jeez. This is what happens when law enforcement is about politics, not law enforcement. Almost as idiotic as those pols that come around and want to force police to "shoot to wound".

My son is a corrections officer and interestingly enough they are told to fire a warning shot. He said if a fight breaks out in the prison yard an officer in the tower will fire a warning shot at a special "shot board", normally all the inmates hit the ground as they know they may be shot if they continue fighting. In self defense situtations the only warning shot should be the first round that hits the perpetrator who tries to attack you after being given a verbal warning.

The worst thing would be that a warning shot richochets or is fired in the air and hits an innocent bystander. You're responsible for all rounds fired, including "warning shots".

Edited by junglebob, 21 February 2012 - 07:07 PM.

Disarming the people (is) the best and most effectual way to enslave them. George Mason

Remember the 1991 Luby Cafeteria Massacre of the Unarmed (Kileen, Texas before Texas Concealed Carry) Do we need 23 people to die in a similar incident before we're allowed effective self defense?

Three school masacres have been stopped by civilians with firearms. Two with handguns and the third by a guy with a shotgun. (Pearl, Ms; Appalacian School of Law; Edinboro,Pa)

My son is a corrections officer and interestingly enough they are told to fire a warning shot. He said if a fight breaks out in the prison yard an officer in the tower will fire a warning shot at a special "shot board", normally all the inmates hit the ground as they know they may be shot if they continue fighting. In self defense situtations the only warning shot should be the first round that hits the perpetrator who tries to attack you after being given a verbal warning.

The worst thing would be that a warning shot richochets or is fired in the air and hits an innocent bystander. You're responsible for all rounds fired, including "warning shots".

That I can see. You are in a position to fire w/out having to take return fire or be advanced on... a cop on patrol... not so much.

How could he be a threat if he is crawling out a window with an arm load of loot. The dumbazz should have told him to stop or he would shoot and then wait for him to comply. Had he dropped the loot and made a move they guy then could have legally shot in fear of his life. Like one of the other posters said DANG MOVIES! There is no such thing as a warning shot PERIOD.

Like I said, I wasn't there. That robber could have dropped that crap and shot him dead. How would that guy have known if he was armed or not? Agreed about the warning shot, but at least he fired into the ground unlike most idiots that would shoot in the air.

This guy made a lot of mistakes. Intentionally shooting a gun in a residential neighborhood when no one's life is immediate danger and the bad guy is FLEEING is a big NO NO. (Also, the gun was a .50 cal Desert Eagle, I can't find the video anymore I suppose Fox took it down)

And for those of you who want to know the legality police (not the general public) of shooting people who are fleeing, feel free to read this case:

A Tennessee statute provides that, if, after a police officer has given notice of an intent to arrest a criminal suspect, the suspect flees or forcibly resists, "the officer may use all the necessary means to effect the arrest." Acting under the authority of this statute, a Memphis police officer shot and killed appellee-respondent Garner's son as, after being told to halt, the son fled over a fence at night in the backyard of a house he was suspected of burglarizing. The officer used deadly force despite being "reasonably sure" the suspect was unarmed and thinking that he was 17 or 18 years old, and of slight build. The father subsequently brought an action in Federal District Court, seeking damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for asserted violations of his son's constitutional rights. The District Court held that the statute and the officer's actions were constitutional. The Court of Appeals reversed.Held: The Tennessee statute is unconstitutional insofar as it authorizes the use of deadly force against, as in this case, an apparently unarmed, nondangerous fleeing suspect; such force may not be used unless necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others. Pp. 497 U. S. 7-22.

Moral of the story--don't go chasing after bad guys when no one's life is in danger.

Edit, from the Dissenting (losing side) of Garner:

The Court's opinion sweeps broadly to adopt an entirely new standard for the constitutionality of the use of deadly force to apprehend fleeing felons. Thus, the Court "lightly brushe[s] aside," Payton v. New York, supra, at 445 U. S. 600, a longstanding police practice that predates the Fourth Amendment and continues to receive the approval of nearly half of the state legislatures. I cannot accept the majority's creation of a constitutional right to flight for burglary suspects

Edited by NakPPI, 21 February 2012 - 09:02 PM.

Stung by the result of McDonald v. City of Chicago, 130 S. Ct. 3020 (2010), the City quickly enacted an ordinance that was too clever by half. Recognizing that a complete gun ban would no longer survive Supreme Court review, the City required all gun owners to obtain training that included one hour of live‐range instruction, and then banned all live ranges within City limits. This was not so much a nod to the importance of live‐range training as it was a thumbing of the municipal nose at the Supreme Court.

My good friend a deputy here in Pike County fired a warning shot while apprehending a suspect who was draining an anhydrous tank. The suspect stopped and he was subsequently arrested and there was no flak!

Regards, Drd

EDITED to say. The officer said he would not have shot the guy. The officer is heavy and would not have been able to apprehend him unless the subject had stopped on his own.

Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.--Thomas Jefferson to I. Tiffany, 1819

What right did the police have to enter his house to take the other guns? If he stayed outside the house until police arrived I can see them taking the gun he used, but they had no right/reason to enter his house to look for more weapons. That is bull****.

This guy went out to help neighbors three times. He fired a .50 cal Desert Eagle into the ground, tackled the bad guy, and dragged him to the cops. He's on the news as a hero. Try that in chicago. This why I REALLY HATE LIBERALS. http://www.click2hou...az/-/index.html

Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.--Thomas Jefferson to I. Tiffany, 1819